I recently read a comment by a reader regarding US automaker bailouts and "Buy American" :

---

you want us to "step up".......the gov't wants us to "step up".........the car makers certainly want us to "step up"...........try this one:

buy an American car....get a lifetime guarantee for the vehicle....yes, we've gotta maintain the vehicle, etc, etc......but, no tricky clauses, no "gotcha's".......plain language

You, the Buyer, get a lifetime warranty....PERIOD!

it's good for the car industry, it's good for the autoworkers, it's good for the tax revenue for the local and national economies.........and it's good for us , singularly and collectively

---

I'd like to piggy back on that idea:

---

The majority of Americans have a car payment in their budget...and there always seems to be one year after year. The budget also has a maintenance of car expense.
We as a nation are trying to become fuel efficient. We need to reverse the loss of industry technology and jobs in the US. The budget also requires an insurance expense. So how much is the cost of vehicle, maintenance, insurance, repair etc. over the complete lifecycle of transport means...for the average automobile owner today?

Suppose:

Suppose you could acquire a fuel efficient basic no luxury automobile...much like a lease except that full lifetime maintenance would be included. And suppose the car manufacturer determined the lifetime cycle of that car and replaced it when it became more practical than repairs it was doing. Suppose that the funding (for awhile) for the process was guaranteed by the government based upon the car manufacturer producing said automobile with specified and improving gas mileage or equivalent in alternate energy sources? And suppose the manufacturer was required to perform safety inspections on these cars as they cycled through their dealer's garages. Suppose they also covered repair/replacement from accident (mechanical coverage only). And since most manufacturers have an appendage corporation that makes loans, they would have to provide such loans based upon very prudent requirements.

Now say, you didn't have to take your car to the dealer to be serviced but could go wherever you wished...manufacturer support etc. is dropped...but it's your choice.

Now say you didn't have to get one of these low cost no frills cars with efficient gas mileage...no problem, buy what you like and care for it as you wish.

American citizens only! American made only. No contracting out to foreign companies for parts, labor, design etc.

Now there are various considerations that need to be built in to make this work, however this is only a concept paper.

What might the impact be regarding this (E)conomy-based (T)ransport - et-car:

For this et-car:
1. Two, four and six people versions...et2, et3, et4 cars...maybe
2. The two people version might be a three wheel very economical, minimal speed, vehicle with few amenities like one of the types currently coming into the market.
Gets you from point A to point B protected from weather with groceries at 45 MPG at max speed of 55mph. All might just be one color.
3. Economical life cycle considered. data, maintenance, et-car identity, insurance-repair-replacement-reuse-recycle


For the populace:
1. People regardless of income bracket could get suitable basic transportation... with no repair surprises, insured, safe, affordable, guaranteed transportation for a single monthly fee. Quality improvement.
2. More American made jobs
3. Potentially safer for all travelers
4. Government support for re-education for needed skills to produce everything in the US.


For the manufacturer/business:
1. Government financial support for re-design development
2. Guaranteed investment return for quality versus repair costs
3. Government support for start of businesses supporting the e-cars parts
4. More American made business
5. a standard sized et-car for more efficient parking facilities

For the nation:
1, Lowe unemployment
2, Bailout with targeted results
3. Return of technology and technicians
4. Effective use of job core type social programs in education and employment

Needed:
Departments Labor, transportation, treasury, HEW, etc. coordination - one heck of a lot of political power pressure with squabble suppression ability. Automaker acceptance or no bailout.

It has been said that Henry Ford had a vision of the common man being able to have automobile transportation within his means - and he created an industry to do that which enhanced the industrial might of the US AND provided a good job for employees.

It's time to do that again.

Bright spark of newly discovered freedom

---

Just when you think you've awakened into an alternate world where nothing makes sense, you find something which accurately expresses your view of that world with style and reason.
Yahoo! Maintains a question and answer forum...you ask a question...anyone can answer and the answers are listed for all to view (including you).

Quite often you can tell by the questions and answers, that a majority come from youths, although quite serious questions are sometimes asked to which participants provide very helpful answers.

This one is a beauty:

---

Does Anyone Know A Website for Cool Bebo Profile Names? Best Answer - Chosen by Voters 97% 405 Votes Let's get this straight, you're asking for a website from which you can pick and choose a "cool" profile name for your Bebo account. An account which is supposed to be a representative presentation of who you are and what you're about. Are you beginning to see the direction my argument is going in? Of course you haven't. I'll continue. Back in the old, dark days of the internet when men were men, women were men and children were FBI agents, no one cared what people thought of them. This was when the internet was still merely a bright spark of newly discovered freedom burning bright against the darkened backdrop of a world half enslaved by totalitarian freedom-hating governments, unscrupulous money grabbing corporations, backward millenia-old religions and millions upon millions of dead-eyed sheeple. The internet burned brightly as an escape, a way to show who you were to a wider audience, a way of discovering and sharing things you never knew existed, a way of forcing back the ever encroaching shadows of the real world to keep your internal flame burning just that little bit longer. The internet burned brighter and stronger as the rush of people to it acted as fuel to the fire, and the rush of companies to it was the oxygen it needed to sustain itself, and to grow. The Napster and Kazaa era came and went as the dark lords of the world attempted to wrestle back their power from this bastard child of technology and freedom that we know as the web. People pushed each other by finding, creating and sharing things that would have people in the old world hung, drawn and quartered but in this new space, this virtual plane of existence it did not solicit the fiery condemnation of preachers and politicians alike. We laughed. We saw these examples of hate, of destruction and of evil and we laughed and encouraged them; for it was not the same evil as that which ravaged the lands of the physical world, but an evil unsullied by power, money, dogma or time. This was new evil, strong evil, and pure evil. It shaped a generation and a way of life was born. The internet was no longer an escape from life, it was a mirror of it; a dark and distorting mirror in which our reflections are not always what we wanted, hoped or indeed expected to see. Bebo and such sites are like a swimming pool on an ocean liner, floating in the middle of the endless abyss of the internet. You get a taste of what it's like to be in the water, but you learn nothing of its depth, breadth or more unsavoury inhabitants. Whether we like it or not however, these fist-clenchingly corporately built sites are part and parcel of the modern internet. The reason for accepting them is that they are an easy way to share at least some tiny proportion of yourself with people. Show them what amuses you, what confuses you, what makes you you. You come before us, the anonymous masses to ask us for a "cool Bebo profile name" which you can use to impress your real life friends with just how stylish and original you are. We say to you that your attempt to bastardise the concepts of these halls will not be answered. Anyways, no I don't know any websites for cool bebo profile names. Good luck.

---

The only attribution I can provide is that the comment was made by RBX. Of all the questions which RBX answered, half the time his answer was selected as the best. That ratio is higher than the greatest majority of those who participate.


You have my salutation of appreciation, RBX, whoever or whatever you are!

Words tell you how things should be, action makes it happen.
If rules and regulations truly governed people, those ten commandments would be all that's needed. As extremists have shown us, the pen is NOT mightier than the sword.

We need the right people, doing the right things and doing them well...a job description doesn't make that happen. Words don't either.

While it is of value to encourage an exchange of views in determining the best course of action...some communicate via actions that words cannot combat. If they did, if talking with zealot enemies did any good, Neville Chamberlain would be the hero in WWII and Gen. Patton would just be a tank commander.

Prepare for action.

Beauty does not exclude ability or brains

Having once been a beauty queen does not make you stupid or unable to play the game.

I usually see our two-party system as two teams of hired guns whose methods are the same and whose goals are more alike than different...watched by a betting sadistic crowd who cheer when someone they dislike gets shot. Last man standing wins.

Recently I read an article...another "who shot who" of political grist that is a blatant example of the charade. But hidden in the unpleasant prejudice I found something that rang true and gave me a different perspective on politicians and specially on lawyers who become politicians. Ignore the party talk and concentrate on the individuals, their background and modus operandi. Can you see what I see in that article printed below?

---

The Democrat Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and HillaryClinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer, and so is his wife, Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate). Every Democrat vice
presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the

Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.

The Republican Party not so! President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Fristis a heart surgeon.

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers.

The Lawyers' Party see business people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the money rich big business opposition in a court, while they are defenders of the common man suing for his daily bread.

Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing goods of value in our nation.

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, with extreme prejudice without regard to justice or moral constraint. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse

language to favor their side.

Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become 'adverse parties' of our very government. We are not all litigants in some
vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.

Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place should be modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. The power of lawyers in America is too great.

We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform, or real hope in America Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy. When prayer was excluded from public education, via
Supreme Court decision, who was the beneficiary ... the lawyers who got paid...no child gained a
thing.

Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business.

Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.

---

Perhaps Americans will see that a majority of lawyers nurture "something for nothing", greed and vengeance with promises that are often unreachable or without conscience...that they get paid regardless of the outcome and are rarely held accountable. A lot of politicians are that way too...maybe because they are lawyers.

Of course, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.

Image USA - Not good?

Recently I was asked to comment on the image of the United States globally considering it is so negatively viewed and often reviled:

---

The USA image isn't reality but perception molded by media and political forces, many of which are greatly biased. History reveals that of the evils (as you might choose to say) committed by the USA, there are many other countries who have done the same. The point is not that the USA is no worse than others, but that it too has made mistakes.
However, no country has undertaken the restoration of countries damaged by warfare as greatly as the USA. No country has sustained an international forum for global care like the USA has with the UN, Red Cross, WHO etc. Charitable actions by NGO's from the USA are in more places and with more resources given, than ANY other country. The education institutes of the USA provide opportunity for more foreign students than any other country.

---

For all that is wrong of the USA, there is much more than equal good which is extended globally.

---

My view of the USA is that it suffers from an excess of riches that have rapidly come to a decline; that its citizens are apathetic, ungrateful, spoiled and naive; that its government is lethargic by its immense size and bureaucratic entanglements; and that it has wasted its resources and damaged its land with pollutants. These are the same faults as can be found in most countries. However, the USA is judged to be the worst because its citizens are generally better off that those of other countries and they are expected to behave better for it.
USA sins are deemed greater than the same sins of other countries, because of its greatness.

---

My $.02

---

I got this from a friend's email. But I have comments to this below.

---

Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. They believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

Please read the "Black Value System" again -- only this time, substitute the word "White" for "Black."

If your church had such a "White Value System" Jesse and Al and the NAACP would have 10,000 demonstrators out front in a heartbeat.

---

So I read up to this point and started to agree when I realized that both perspectives were flawed in consideration of the problems we face.

Try substituting American instead of white or black ...we are all in this together and white versus black never solved anything then or now.

See it this way:

1. Commitment to God [ But our judicial system and legislative bodies have denigrated reference to God]

2. Commitment to the American Community [ So many immigrants now wish to be Mexicans or Latinos in America and not to be an American]
3. Commitment to the American Family [ How many "whole" families versus how many "single
parent/broken/dysfunctional" families?]
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education [ Americans in our institutions of learning
consistently score less than foreign students]
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence [ Made in USA no longer means good quality and hasn't for thirty years]
6. Adherence to the American Work Ethic [ We have three and four generation families who have all lived entirely based on welfare]
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect [ Too many athletes in sports prove this is not a goal they desire or their fans expect ]
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness" [ Whever this means, middleclass is a very
narrow target and getting slimmer daily]
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the American Community [ Only if the salary/price is right ]
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting American Institutions
[ We're still trying to support outselves while our government supports other nations that
despise us and panders to multinational corporations that bleed us of jobs, skills, and money]
11. Pledge allegiance to all American leadership who espouse and embrace the American Value System [ This is probably the hardest one. Too many of our "leaders" and political organizations
are in a foreign nation's pocket]
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the American Value System. [ Not if they can't shop at Wal-Mart ]

Commitment, dedication and allegiance used so often above, are sadly unused in real life today except towards the self.

Why people behaved the way they did

Well, I suppose that everyone cared what their neighbors thought of them and at least tried to be civil to those that didn't. While a rich kid with lots of toys was great to visit, we still preferred to go home. And if visiting us, that kid threatened to take his marbles and go home if we didn't let him win...he went home. Your value system wasn't about things...it was who was a good baseball player, ran the fastest, swam farthest and even that wasn't enough if you were a mean kid or had an attitude. You were what you could and did do, not what you had.
Kids that got into fights at school - were often taken to the corner of the field and forced to fight it out until what ever wrong was less than the beating you were getting...coaches just watched. Principals at school paddled kids for infractions that warranted it ... and if the kid's parent(s) complained they were told to make their kids behave or they would be banned from school for a few days - such kids misbehaved like that home enough, the parents did what they had to, so their kids could go back to school.

If you broke a window with a rock, ran across a neighbor's flower garden, mistreated an animal, left trash in the neighbor's yard...any adult would tell your parents. If the parents didn't fix that, their reputation suffered to be no better than their kids and were shunned.

AND TODAY?

I blame it on Mister Rogers...he liked them "just the way you are"...so the bad ones kept on...and the good ones didn't think they had to improve.

I blame it on a liberal society that made being liked and politically correct more important than being honorable and respected.

I blame it on adults who were more concerned about making their children happy than good, who felt they had to entertain bored children or they didn't love them as parents...to stop them from whining.

In a previous generation if you were whining it was usually for having to do some chore and it mattered not one whit...because you still had to do it and if you didn't stop there would be no allowance on Saturday...and you knew there wouldn't be. Teens were grounded for cursing. Younger ones got their mouths washed out with soap - it wasn't considered poisoning and it was a nasty taste in your mouth that was harder to get out than those words..

What does this all mean?
Successively worse from one generation to the next, parents parent less and children rule more. The older generation enjoyed prosperity and good times and therefore could afford to provide more for their children and did. Their children as parents thought it natural to give their children more than just the necessities...to be loved as they loved their parents and giving equated to love...but both parents had to work in order to afford that. The next generation felt entitled to more than the necessities and demanded them...from any adult, teacher, care giver (remember Mister Rogers said it) or it was permissible to disrespect, vandalize and steal. The Ten Commandments weren't taught, respected...or even understood except that it was what "the man" dictated to be ignored when it suited.

What it means is that people expect to receive, not give, and they don't have to earn it ! Respect, money, friendship, love, property, food, medical care and you name it whether necessity or more...earning it is more difficult than demanding it, if that works. Many people living "off the system" actually believe that they have earned their public dole for having stood in line waiting for it.
Many people enjoy national security, but because they didn't earn it themselves, they think they are just entitled to it...or they can just pay mercenaries for it (professional soldiers in an all volunteer versus citizen Army, or pseudo-military organizations that hire out to protect in foreign lands)

When does that change?
When prosperity and luxury is replaced by impoverishment...and that day is rapidly approaching...and that applies to children, adults, towns, states and nations. Yet today we still are "politically correct" to encourage the taking of what we have by those unwilling to earn it.
Mother said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Amen!

When will it get better?
When we earn it!

A schism of Catholicism in the making...in America?

Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied Communion.

His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec's support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.

Kmiec was denied Communion in April at a Mass for a group of Catholic business people he later addressed at dinner. The episode has not received wide attention outside the Catholic world, but it is the opening shot in an argument that could have a large impact on this year's presidential campaign: Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny Communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights?

A version of this argument roiled the 2004 campaign when some, though not most, Catholic bishops suggested that John Kerry and other pro-choice Catholic politicians should be denied Communion because of their views on abortion.

The Kmiec incident poses the question in an extreme form: He is not a public official but a voter expressing a preference. Moreover, Kmiec -- a law professor at Pepperdine University and once dean of Catholic University's law school -- is a long-standing critic of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

Kmiec, who was head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the late 1980s, is supporting Obama despite the candidate's position on abortion, not because of it, partly in the hope that Obama's emphasis on personal responsibility in sexual matters might change the nature of the nation's argument on life issues.

Kmiec has drawn attention because he is one of the nation's leading "Obamacons," conservatives who find Obama's call for a new approach to politics appealing. Kmiec started life as a Democrat. His father was a soldier in the late Mayor Richard J. Daley's Chicago political machine, and Kmiec's earliest political energies were devoted to Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 campaign.

But like many Catholic Democrats, Kmiec was profoundly attracted to Ronald Reagan. For him, five words in Reagan's 1980 acceptance speech summarized the essence of a Catholic view of politics: "family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom."

In an interview over the weekend, Kmiec argued that 35 years after Roe, opponents of abortion need to contemplate whether "a legal prohibition" of abortion "is the only way to promote a culture of life."

"To think you have done a generous thing for your neighbor or that you have built up a culture of life just because you voted for a candidate who says in his brochure that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade is far too thin an understanding of the Catholic faith," he said. Kmiec, a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, added that Catholics should heed "the broad social teaching of the church," including its views on war.

Kmiec shared with me the name of the priest who denied him Communion and a letter of apology from the organizers of the event, but he requested that I not name the priest to protect the cleric from public attack.

The priest's actions are almost certainly out of line with the policy of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. In their statement"Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," issued last November, the bishops said: "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position."

The "if" phrase in that carefully negotiated sentence suggests that Catholics can support pro-choice candidates, provided the purpose of their vote is not to promote abortion.

Already, Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City has played an indirect role in the 2008 campaign by calling on Kathleen Sebelius, the popular Democratic governor of Kansas who has been mentioned as a possible Obama running mate, to stop taking Communion because of her "actions in support of legalized abortion."

But because Kmiec is a private citizen and has such a long history of embracing Catholic teaching on abortion, denying him Communion for political reasons may spark an even greater outcry inside the church.

Kmiec says he is grateful because the episode reminded him of the importance of the Eucharist in his spiritual life, and because he hopes it will alert others to the dangers of "using Communion as a weapon."

---

I suppose using Communion as a weapon by denying it is still better than being ex-communicated...or is it the same? This was a violation of Canon Law.

However, other meddlesome priests have been thwarted in past history with significant impact. The USCCB is not in control, nor (allegedly) is Cardinal Roger Michael Mahony Archbishop of Los Angeles? This is the Cardinal who advised his priests to ignore the immigration bill and accepted a settlement of $660 million to victims of clerical sexual abuse in that archdiocese (Boston was just a mere $157 million).

This begs the question, has Catholicism been denied to America by the very men who administer it? I do not ask for defense, denial or otherwise speak against/for Catholicism ... or errant priests. I also remember that in 2004, our local priest spoke from the altar that is was morally wrong for anyone to vote for a candidate who espoused/accepted legal abortion.

"Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship A Call to Political Responsibility " (USCCB) is so obtuse as to confuse a high school graduate, and possibly even a legal scholar like Professor Douglas Kmiec former Dean and St. Thomas More Professor of the law school at The Catholic University of America. Somehow I doubt the priest who denied Communion to Kmiec nor my local parish priest acted against the direction of their bishop...of course the bishops can claim plausable deniability.

Is there another schism of Catholicism in the making in America?

"Undisclosed Recipient" emails from a person who has never ever sent me a personal note.

Some people have a group name which includes most of the addresses they have and they send anything of interest to everyone in that group name...

Sometimes when I receive such an email, I know that the person who sent it was just broadcasting and the email really isn't something the author thinks would be of interest to me.
EXAMPLE: I got an email addressed to "Undisclosed Recipient": It was an article telling people who wish to, how to gain weight. If you know me, that email was not applicable to me at all.

I have chosen to send emails to several people in a single email addressed to "Undisclosed" which is not a group address...then I BCC people from my address book that I think will specifically benefit...for that email.

SO! You know this email is specifically meant for you...and no one else sees your address in the TO: or CC: block (to maintain any privacy for your address).

Each time I send to Undisclosed, I select exactly to whom it will go...EACH TIME. It takes a minute or so extra time for me, but it avoids sending you an email about how to gain weight (if you are even slightly as heavy as I am - grin).

I urge you to consider a similar method of your own. Why? Because broadcasting to everyone in your address book or to a large number of them, indiscriminately, is like telling a story out loud in the middle of a bus station :
(1) some people don't think you are talking to them and don't listen
(2) some people disregard any email not specifically addressed to them (unless they know you have purposely selected them)
(3) some people broadcast everything they get in email as a forwarded item
(4) persons who you really want to read the email for important information often put off reading such emails.
(5) I grow weary of receiving emails addressed to "Undisclosed Recipient" from people who I would like to think are thinking of me, only to realize I was put on a distribution list long ago; the sender is just doing a "quick and dirty" mailing to a group that hasn't been updated and I've really been forgotten (which is okay, just update your group listing and quit bugging me). I have received dozens of Undisclosed emails from a person who has never ever sent me a personal note and to whom I have not written in years.

Give 'em a Big Mac and Fries

"The Farm Bill" H.R. 2419 has been widely criticized, vetoed by the President, and that veto overridden by congress. You can see why almost any citizen should be incensed by examining provisions of the bill
(Link provided here)

Here is one item as example:

Section 17 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2026) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(k) Nutrition Education and Promotion Initiative to Address Obesity-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish a demonstration program, to be known as the `Initiative to Address Obesity Among Low-Income Americans' (referred to in this subsection as the `Initiative'), to develop and implement
solutions to reduce obesity in the United States.

(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012....

So what is the target "low-income" definition? "...individuals living in households with incomes at or below 185 percent of the poverty level...."

At the lowest threshold published by the US Census Bureau, that would be approximately $18,400...or about 23% of the population.(i.e. approximately 70 million people). A Census Bureau estimate is that 21% of US citizens are obese, therefore the bill addresses about 15 million people.

If 15 million overweight people were offered a choice.

(1) read a pamphlet about good eating habits.
(or attend a Demonstration Program)

(2) a free Big Mac, fries and small coke.
(What that $40-50 million would buy 15 million people)

Which do you think they would choose?

Do you think 15 million people don't know what makes them fat?
Do you think there is no free access to information about diets and exercise via libraries, public schools, TV, etc. ?
Do you think a government program could significantly reduce obesity where all other efforts and reasons have not?
If there was ever a good solution, "Just say No" comes to mind...and Hillary Clinton (who voted FOR this bill) can be the one to say it.

Legalize Prostitution

I advocate a legalized form of prostitution !!! Why?
Differences betwen a married couple and a prostitute with her John:
Married Couple	Prostitute and John
Sanctioned by the church	Illegal IAW local laws
Government licensed	Government enforces prohibition
Woman has papers on man	Woman profits by pleasing man
Children - sometimes	Children not desired
Failure = havoc on all forever	Failure = one time
Minimal STD	Excessive STD
Taxed, federal and state	Untaxed
Minimal crime	Excessive crime
Prostitution exists and will continue to exist as the oldest profession.
If prostitution in some form was legal, no governmental costs to enforce; unwanted children avoided; safeguards against STD could be established; income taxable by federal and state; and crime reduced where aided by black market sex.
So WHY don't we make some form of legal prostitution? Many women feel they cannot compete! Many women could/would not get married without sex for sale as a contract for support and fidelity. If your average Joe just wanting sex, could get it at competitive prices with less fear for disease, crime or police arrest - the result would include less undesirable marriages; less sex related abuse; less man vs. woman hate; more employment; less welfare costs and a lot less undesired children requiring welfare support etc. Many want ownership and guarantee of support from a chosen partner...probably acceptable where children result...but the arrangement can be one of slavery...for either sex. None of this excludes the equal opportunity for males - just substitute men where women are mentioned above.

Let us re-examine the use of punishments not often used:
the words that come to mind are banishment, deportation, exile, and expel among others.

An efficient, practical and productive answer to resolve many of our social ills is to banish individuals to underpopulated or unpopulated areas or outside our borders.

Citizenship implies entitlement, responsibility and rights. The rehabilitation of citizens who have committed certain crimes requires restoration of respect for these rights and entitlements. When these rights are diminished by natural environment an individual gains appreciation for the advantages of a protective society. When individuals are placed in a subculture devoid of the rights they violated they gain appreciate for and knowledge of their value.

Let’s deport any alien who commits a crime. Let’s banish alien repeaters.

Let’s banish our more serious, repetitive or incorrigible criminals to an area too practically remote to escape, where they can live with the rights of a subculture commensurate with their willingness to respect them. Banish incorrigible thieves to a colony of thieves, murderers to a colony of killers, sexual offenders to a colony of their ilk and etc. When the prospect of becoming victim of their own offenses at the hands of like offenders, banishment becomes a deterrent or at least a practical solution.

With the reduced incarcerations, and the associate costs, funding could be secured for transport, minimal self-reliant materials for survival, and oversight. In fact there should be savings.

In this manner, at least two land masses have been civilized and become nations of worldwide contribution with respect. The United States of America is one.

You might want to see these:
Native American Indian Justice

Indian tribes revive punishment of banishing

Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation (North Carolina) Creates a New Law to Banish Drug Dealers


We need to go back to our old ways.

Banishment - Further Readings

Suppose you didn't vote "for the lesser of two evils"

---

Suppose "not voting" for the lesser of two evils, responsible citizens could vote NO to the candidates presented by the parties?

---

On JULY 4, 1776 The thirteen united States of America made a declaration.
This declaration began with these words.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

If you extract some of the more salient phrases from the remainder of the document you can understand some of the motivation which should now motivate the American people. We should revolt against the current two party system which dictates our representatives in government for the same reasons we chose to revolt against King George.

Here are some:

...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [ie. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

...has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

There are more items of concern which might apply to this subject in the Declaration of Independence from King George and the British Empire. Remember, this commentary is aimed towards revolt against the Democratic and Republican parties. To whit and paraphrase the conclusion of the 1776 document:

We declare to be absolved from all allegiance to the existing political parties and that all political connection between them and the American public is and ought to be totally dissolved.

Remember, our constitution established three branches of government (with the intent to instill checks and balances). Neither the Republican party, nor the Democratic party, are established or defined in our constitution.

Should there be political parties to foster public service? Yes. Should these parties effectively prevent independent political candidates, voters or administration? No.

The reality, with historical support, is that in the past century allegiance to one of two political parties and it's methodology in selecting candidates for office has become mandatory. Candidates must adhere to the objectives of party insiders in order to be elected...a ruling class not ordained by our constitution. Our elected officials follow the wishes of their party more than the expectations for the good of the public...the governed from whom powers are derived. The parties manipulate, shape, focus and directs public opinion...it doesn't go from the bottom up.

We can't do that! Some will suggest. The two parties are so ingrained in our system that there would be chaos if they were completely abandoned. Not completely true but worthy of consideration.

Here is my revolting idea. Have another party...call it the independent party, the people's party or even the unaligned party. This party would have a simple platform. It would not select a candidate nor provide funding/support for a candidate. It would be comprised of independent citizens seeking alternatives to the existing parties. They would create caucuses and primaries via internet which would become a popular vote view; BUT the party itself would create only a phantom candidate. Suppose neither existing party could gain a plurality of the popular vote, but the popular vote was so great against their candidates that the phantom candidate (not representing either existing party) received a plurality.

---

Suppose "not voting" for the lesser of two evils, responsible citizens could vote NO to the candidates presented by the parties?

---

The constitution's requirements for president indicate only that the person be a native citizen, over 35 years of age and have resided in this country for 14 years. No where does it require the person be alive...George Washington or Thomas Jefferson meet the requirement.

If the public favored a phantom or a dead George Washington over the candidates being proposed by Republicans, Democrats, Green Party or whatever...might that influence the quality of the candidates? Might a candidate favor the interests of "the people's party" or whatever name is chosen over a political party? Would candidates "suck up" to the public more than to party fat cats?

For the first time ever, the average Joe or Jill, not only has access to information but the ability to voice himself to everyone who might be interested regardless of their location, financial status etc. via the internet. The internet is the most democratic tool available...and that is why some countries have implemented restricted access for their citizens.

Some of the framers of our constitution felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical...and the Electoral College was the compromise reached. Today a national election by popular vote is not impractical. And the citizenry is still too easily duped by promises or shenanigans...which is an effect of the competition between only two parties without recourse.

---

Imagine the impact of an Internet Party with no allegiance to anyone except to those citizens who are not satisfied with the candidates proposed by existing parties. Citizens who can and will vote - but not for their candidate.

---

Well, the Declaration of Independence, did not include the answer to all questions and this proposed declaration doesn't either. What it did do is voice opposition to an existing political system and intent to alter it.

As for me, during the early days of our political parties' process I would have joined the Internet Party as a primary/caucus to tell Republicans and Democrats to present better candidates. Look at what they have presented in the last fifty years. Is this the best we can do?

Revise the Federal Reserve Act of 1913

At 2:39PM EST today, March 16, the Federal Reserve lowered the Key Interest Rate another .75 percentage points to 2.25%.
This further denotes a recession in the United States. We have all become "comfortable" with the way the Federal Reserve affects our economy and few of us understand how it does its job. However, it may be that time has come for us to be more knowledgeable of that organization and its functions.
The following URL reaches a "plain language" explanation of the Federal Reserve system, according to one of the twelve Reserve Banks [designated 10J].
Although it is anything but "plain and simple" it does give information that will help to explain.
http://www.stls.frb.org/publications/pleng/default.html

In my not so humble opinion, the Federal Reserve system has failed. I should say, that at least in one of its functions to examine the viability of each bank you and I use, regarding risk and liability...a sound and responsible performance. As each bank is examined, a rating is assigned which indicates the bank's processes and performance and further denotes if there are areas which require corrective action. So what happened regarding the fifth largest banking concern, Bear Stearns, that it was kept from collapse only by urgent action supported with special $30 billion Federal Reserve backing (bailout).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts:
Bear Stearns has never reported an annual loss.
At the close of the quarter in February it claims a profit.
At the end of 2007 the "book value" of its shares of stock was $84.09 per share.
Mid-March Bear Stearns agreed to be acquired by J.P. Morgan at $2 per share.

This was the fifth largest banking concern in the United States!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To use the imagery of a political candidate, the $30 Billion effort to get the bus out of the ditch doesn't concern me as much as how the bus got driven into the ditch in the first place with Federal Reserve oversight and examination.

Congress who oversees the Federal Reserve, established the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Since then its responsibilities has been expanded and of course so has the infrastructure to carry out these functions...and like most such bureaucratic organizations it has metastasized into a maze of structure, regulations, personnel and officiousness. Banking reform was the reason it was created.

Time has come again to reform.

The Us Constitution defines the necessary qualifications for president as:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

That includes a lot of people. However, the public at large defines further what is expected of a president for whom they will vote into office. Or do they? The current two-party process has generally presented candidates which have lead to the premise of "the lesser of two evils." The public so expects corruption in the political process that it is rare for a candidate to espouse honesty without a chorus of snickers. To say a candidate wins the presidency is not to claim selection of the best citizen for the executive job and at best only attests to the appearance of ability.

So just what are qualities a president should have? Candidates are quick to point to qualities they have that an opponent does not have. Th standard would seem to be whatever makes a candidate appear better than an opponent. And that reinforces the "lesser of two evils" perspective.

It is doubtful that it would be possible to establish criteria for the performance of the functions of the executive office that would endure from one election to another. Citizens usually call out present day concerns for solutions, for which candidates make promises to resolve, although there is no means by which to enforce delivery of the promises. Yet history gives evidence that current problems are often overshadowed by new problems for a president and for which he is unaware. The concept of voting for the candidate with the best solutions for today's problems is like driving by looking into the rear view mirror while traveling around a blind curve...even if the solution(s) are effective.

Would it not be better to examine candidates based upon qualities that will serve the future?

Let us begin with honesty. How many presidents of the past have been dishonest to the citizenry about significant issues?
Then perhaps integrity? How many presidents of the past have waffled to appease a poll or special interest despite previous positions stated?
How about leadership? Well Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin etc. were effective leaders in the broad sense of the word...even if their vision was poor.
Character? Conduct that conforms to an accepted standard of right and wrong would appear as character for one man and immoral conduct for another.
Decisiveness surely is a quality needed of an executive. How many presidents have been able to decide significant matters which failed regardless of their confidence?

How does one determine if a presidential candidate "has what it takes" to successfully execute the functions of office in light of uncertain future issues as well as the known ones?
Experience then? What experience approaches the ability to set off thermonuclear war at the press of a button?

What qualities has history deemed in past presidents that made one a better president than another?

The ability to choose and charge a supporting staff of intelligent, capable and honorable people to address the needs of the public with selfless dedication and intent. In this manner both lesser and greater of two evils have been good presidents. Even the best quarterback cannot achieve victory without a team of good players backing him...but the worst can, with such a team.

Politics in the American process is based on garnering votes during elections to the promotion of advantage of one group's interest as opposed to others. A vote for candidate xyz is to insure that the government's funds will be expended with emphasis on your special interest and not others, because as of yet,
no government is capable of satisfying all of the people all of the time.

And money votes before people do...it is even a measure of a candidate's "electability" for most news sources and political pundits...reported as such. The measurement offends the populace but is accurate nonetheless.

Why does money vote? Money buys presence, the image of power and
the concept of winning.

In America, the general wisdom is that the candidate with the most money backing is more likely to win and Americans want to side with winners regardless of their character, experience or ability.

Who wins? Not the public at large. Polls, which are an undue influence as it is, indicate that Americans expect corruption and thus favor that corruption which most meets their wishes. The beauty pageant of campaigns is entirely image because the public believes that perception is reality. This is a very weak link in the United States of America national security.

Even our reviews of politics by "experts" concentrates on how well the media is handled and the perceptions of the public, versus issues of government or the ability of a candidate to fulfill the needs of the office they seek.

Our government elected officials will behave with conscience
when the populace votes on conscience.

Revolution is in order...if it is not too late.

United States "American/English" biased issue

Let me begin by denoting this is an United States "American/English" biased issue that might well apply to other peoples and should be considered in that fashion. Just substitute your own nation/language(s) into the logic.

I stumbled upon the DoNotCall register regarding the US FTC's online process and registered my phone with the government's program. While there, I noted a special section for those who required their information En Español.

Although I have no negative feelings about Spanish or those who speak it, I am gobsmacked by the lack of equal opportunity. Here's what I think:

For those of you who do not speak English or Spanish, PLEASE complain to your US congressman that you are not receiving equal opportunity as the English/Spanish speaking and want all government communication presented in your language of choice as well. Since there are over 750 languages in daily use, you can imagine the instruction "press 749 for Aragonese." Since Aragonese is spoken in Aragon Spain, not even all Spanish peoples are satisfied with "press 2 for Spanish."

For those of you who think the idea of the U.S. Government trying to speak in tongues...(as if they weren't incomprehensible already) is a silly irony...but see a need for translation at times, let me introduce you to a free on line translator of text and even websites:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/

Try it! Also if you didn't know AltaVista, just know that AltaVista developed the first search able, full-text database on the World Wide Web in 1995 and was THE search engine of its day. (otherwise you'd have no search capability via Yahoo, Google, AskJeeves, AllTheWeb, etc.)
Gemmelsmerch!

And for those of you who are innovative, imagine that instead of spending millions reproducing information in Spanish (and whatever language comes after that ad infinitum) , the United States government instead funded a project to build a universal translator for the world...much like GPS serves the world. Just maybe the rest of the world should help doing this universal translator ability.

Oh, one more thing. Spanish speaking people have some of the richest cultures on this planet and their inclusion at least in America (north and south) is essential. And the same goes for English speaking people specially in the United States of America.

No queen can be more mother

Humans, without regard to any cultural, societal or genetic difference,
can experience with equal enjoyment much of what is upon this earth
and the width of this experience grows. Equal in this view is that from the
lowest to the highest, no man can be without happiness nor can he
enjoy any less or more than other men...in this he is equal.

The exquisite rapture of sexual climax, is felt so well by a poor man as one wealthy.
A rainbow delights with prismatic brilliance in equal measure to all who watch.
A grandson held adoring, is to the heart of men the same.

Listen to Williams and Bream play Clair de Lune...as have millions, with
what might have been available to a rich few once but now more and more.
Yet, once presented, to old and young it is a sound which sings the same to all.

We may have race, language, science, religion, and sustenance differences
but we are more alike than different. No queen can be more mother than the
poorest nomad who hums a lullaby to her first born.

Thank God.

Presidential election = an ugly spectator sport

Our democratic process, as currently practiced, has proven unsatisfactory to the great majority of Americans. Even with hopeful new signs of internet enabled participation, our national elections remain essentially poll-driven, mass media campaigns and little more than an ugly spectator sport, though one with enormous stakes.

NPC Caucus
http://www.nationalcaucus.com/about

"Is this true," he asks with the most innocent expression of bewilderment?

I think our democratic process, as currently practiced, has proven unsatisfactory because Americans make their decision based upon matters that have little to do with a candidate's qualifications, and rarely upon informed logical process. So that's what politicians give them.

I really don't care if your logical process incorporates szindu gimmelsmerch so long as you examine the facts methodically with equal perspective. If you like a candidate because she espouses szindu that's fine. But do us all a favor and check it out. That candidate may have made reference to szindu based upon a staff prepared speech and otherwise wouldn't know what kind of broad-leafed weed that might be. Check if other candidates espouse szindu.

For goodness sake, don't choose the dimpled chinned yachtboy turned serious crusader because he's got beautiful blue eyes. Of course you wouldn't. But add up enough of these incidental 'likes and dislikes' and you have a predisposition.

When it comes to the 'warm and fuzzy' approach to selecting a president, I try to imagine the candidate, sitting in a conference room deep beneath some granite mountain before a keyboard and a screen that says

Click Here to start global nuclear apocalypse.
Chasque aquí para comenzar apocalypse nuclear global.

I favor a bill that restricts voting in an election to those who can reasonably answer correctly a quiz on the educational qualifications of each candidate. High School, college, major study.

Which candidate was educated and practiced as a gynecologist?

Sitting between the outspread legs of women all day hardly compares to staring into a computer screen prepared to launch nuclear missiles at the touch of a mouse click...no matter how often you do it in either case. So what are the qualifications? Sparse guidance is given by our forefathers.

What qualifies a person to serve as president to a nation such as ours in these times and conditions?

Ask those questions!